- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 16:20:27 +0200
- To: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, ext Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On 2002-03-15 18:06, "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> wrote:
> From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
>
>>> Jenny ex:age _:x .
>>> _:x rdfs:dlex "35" .
>>> _:x rdfs:lang "en_US" .
>>
>> I'm not sure if attaching the language property to
>> the same node as the rdfs:dlex is correct. I
>> would think that the language is qualifying the lexical
>> form, not the thing denoted by the lexical form.
>
> I would think that the the language is qualifying the *use* of the lexical
> form (not the lexical for itself) .. in other words what the the bnode
> denotes is (the lexical form interperted in that language). We dont need no
> extra bnode.
Well, if you're qualifying usage, then perhaps you should reify
the dlex statement and define the language as a scope property
for the reification (stating) ;-)
In any case, I don't consider the integer value 35 to be "US English".
The rdfs:lang property does should not attach to the _:x node. Where
it belongs is still an open question, but it doesn't modify
the actual integer value -- which exists independent of any particular
lexical representation that might be qualified for language.
And in any case, this is a bad example, as language does not
apply to lexical representations of integers anyway...
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 09:18:21 UTC